scholarly journals Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy versus Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Upper Urinary Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongyang Jiang ◽  
Zhe Yu ◽  
Liping Chen ◽  
Tao Wang ◽  
Zhuo Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Urinary Calculi ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Urinary Stones ◽  
Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) are both alternatives for PCNL to treat renal calculi. This study is aimed at comparing the stone-free rate (SFR) and other surgery parameters of two approaches for treating upper urinary calculi. We performed this meta-analysis in September 2016 by searching studies about mini-PCNL and RIRS for treating upper urinary calculi in various databases, and RevMan v.5.3 was applied. Three randomized controlled trials and ten nonrandomized trials were included, involving a total of 1317 patients. Meta-analysis showed that mini-PCNL group led to a higher SFR [odds ratio: 1.96; 95% confidence interval: 1.46–2.64; P<0.00001] but brought a larger postoperative decrease in hemoglobin levels compared with RIRS. RIRS provided a shorter hospital time. There was no significant difference in operation time. Higher postoperative complications were detected in the mini-PCNL, but the difference was not significant. Grade I and III complications did not vary between two procedures, but grade II complications were of lower incidence in RIRS group. In the light of these results, compared with RIRS, mini-PCNL provided significantly higher SFR and efficiency quotient for managing calculi; however, it resulted in higher incidence of postoperative complications, larger hemoglobin drops, and longer hospital stay.

scholarly journals The Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with Different Access Sizes for the Single Renal Stone ≤25 mm: A Randomized Prospective Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Weimin Yu ◽  
Yuan Ruan ◽  
Zhuang Xiong ◽  
Yunlong Zhang ◽  
Ting Rao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Stone Free Rate ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Free Rate

<b><i>Objectives:</i></b> The aim of this study was to provide a randomized controlled trial comparing the outcomes of different access sizes used in the solo ultrasonic-guided minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> From January 2018 to December 2019, a total of 160 cases with single renal stones of &#x3c;25 mm were randomized to undergo mini-PCNLs with Fr16, Fr18, Fr20, or Fr22 accesses. All accesses were established with the axis of the target calyx as the marker for puncture location and then expanded to the desired size. Hemoglobin reduction, operative time, stone-free rate, complications, etc., were all recorded and assessed. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The demographic data were similar, and there were no significantly intergroup differences in stone-free rate, complications, and hospital stay time. The hemoglobin reduction was comparable and was 0.9 ± 0.6, 0.9 ± 0.7, 1.0 ± 0.5, and 1.1 ± 0.7 g/dL for the groups Fr16, Fr18, Fr20, and Fr22, respectively. The operative time was 53.4 ± 14.5, 48.5 ± 15.2, 42.8 ± 13.3, and 43.3 ± 13.1 min for the 4 groups, which decreased significantly from group Fr16 to Fr20, but there was no significant difference between Fr20 and Fr22 groups. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The axis of target calyx is a reliable marker for establishment of percutaneous renal access under ultrasonic guidance. The surgical outcomes of different access sizes were comparable, but the operation time was significantly shortened with the increase of size. However, Fr22 was not more efficient than Fr20.

Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Micro-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Kidney Stones: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Zhenhua Gu ◽  
Yucheng Yang ◽  
Rui Ding ◽  
Meili Wang ◽  
Jianming Pu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Kidney Stones ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Significant Difference

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Advances in micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for kidney stones have made it an alternative approach to the retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) approach. Nevertheless, the superiority of micro-PCNL over RIRS is still under debate. The results are controversial. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the clinical results in patients presenting with kidney stones treated with micro-PCNL or RIRS. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A literature search was done for electronic databases to identify researches that compared micro-PCNL and RIRS till December 2019. The clinical outcome included complications, stone-free rates (SFRs), hemoglobin reduction, length of hospital stay, and operative time. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Five articles were included in our study. The pooled results revealed no statistical difference in the rate of complications (OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.57–1.74, <i>p</i> = 0.99), length of hospital stay (MD = −0.29, 95% CI = −0.82 to 0.24, <i>p</i> = 0.28), and operative time (MD = −6.63, 95% CI = −27.34 to 14.08, <i>p</i> = 0.53) between the 2 groups. However, significant difference was present in hemoglobin reduction (MD = −0.43, 95% CI = −0.55 to 0.30, <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001) and the SFRs (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.36–0.98, <i>p</i> = 0.04) when comparing RIRS with micro-PCNL. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Compared with micro-PCNL to treat kidney stones, RIRS is associated with better stone clearance and bearing higher hemoglobin loss. As the advantages of both technologies have been shown in some fields, the continuation of well-designed clinical trials may be necessary.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document